Re: NFS or SSHFS?
- From: Michael Pobega <pobega@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:41:41 -0400
On 0, Israel Garcia <igalvarez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi list,
Do you know pros and cons of using SSHFS instead NFS to share a lot of
debian folders? I know NFS is proven and has good performance with a
lot of shares and intensive use. BUT I don't know if SSHFS have been
proven to work under this circumstances. Any experience using SSHFS?
SSHFS is generally meant to be used as a single-user filesystem; if multiple
people are going to be accessing the mount, you may want to go with NFS.
Also keep in mind the overhead from the encryption will make any SSH transfers
noticeably slower than it's NFS counterpart.
What I 'use' SSHFS for is to mount my $HOME at work to local $HOME/work so that
I can edit my scripts using my local tools, as opposed to having to do
everything over SSH. SSHFS isn't meant to be an encrypted answer to NFS, it's
meant to do little things like that.
At least that's my opinion; I guess you could technically use it any way you
want.
--
http://fuzzydev.org/~pobega
http://identi.ca/pobega
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NFS or SSHFS?
- From: Jerome BENOIT
- Re: NFS or SSHFS?
- References:
- NFS or SSHFS?
- From: Israel Garcia
- NFS or SSHFS?
- Prev by Date: Desktop freezes while browsing
- Next by Date: Re: Fwd: Configure wifi access / Free.Fr / WPA (TKIP/AES)
- Previous by thread: Re: NFS or SSHFS?
- Next by thread: Re: NFS or SSHFS?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
